Concept of Flexibility in Architecture

Concept of Flexibility in Architecture1.0 IntroductionAn Overview Of The Terminology And The Conceptual FrameworkThis chapter aims to define the meaning of the term flexibleness, Adaptability and typological sort are the other concepts that colligate to tractability. Both N.John Habraken (2008) and Tatjana Schneider and Jeremy Till (2007) mention that flexibility and adaptability have overlapping meanings,but the colloquial and the technical meaning commode propose a departure point for their clarification and the conceptual framework of the study. The meaning of the typological variety is more obvious, it points to freedom of choice (Duygu Albostan, 2009)The English colloquial usage of the phrase flexibility is capabilities of being bent,pliancy.Susceptibility of modification or alteration capacity for readily adaptation to various purposes or conditionsfreedom from stiffness or rigidity.(Oxford English Dictionary Online,2009)It is important to refer professional or researche rs who point out the technical meanings of the concept of flexibility ,according to their changing senses over time.Andrew Rabeneck, David Sheppard and Peter township publish two articles related to flexibility and adaptability. The articled authorise Housing Flexibility (1973) and Housing Flexibility/Adaptability? (1974)Flexibilityis proposed against tight-fit functionalism (p.698)They introduced the term tight-fit functionalism that refers to the unhealthy situation of mass living accommodations in the twentieth century of Europe.They develop it as miniaturized living areas with the cell types rooms which do not allow all changes(1973,p.698)The unsuccessful attempts in flexibility are criticized for they may lead to what they call the fallacy of freedom through control.(1973,p.701)Flexibility housing should be capable of religious offering choice and personalization. (1973,p.701)Rabeneck, Sheppard and Town involve the scope of flexibility in housing project. They see flexi bility as a tool to make the minimal housing environments capable of offering for choice and personalization. They criticize flexibility can lead to too technical or complicated housing projects.The adaptability approach,in contrast to the flexible,emphasizes planning and layout rather than constructional technique and work distribution.It is found on carefully considered variations in room sizes, relationship between rooms,slightly generous openings between spaces and little overt expression of room function.(Rabeneck, Sheppard Town, 1974, p.86)Rabeneck, Sheppard and Town take in that flexibility relates to design decisions about the permanent and fixed parts of the buildingthe structural system and service spaces, whilst adaptability related to consideration about the architectural layouts of the be spaces such as the organization of the rooms, their dimensions, the relation between the rooms and their functions.The concept of flexibility deals with the constructional techniq ue and services distribution. (1974, p.86)As previous, they claim the flexibility related to structural system and services spaces, in Housing Flexibility/Adaptability? (1974) they again emphasize on the construction technique and the position of service spaces. They also compare the flexibility with adaptability. They claim that adaptability more towards the architectural layout.Herman Hertzberger emphasized the importance of the concept of flexibility in architectural design in his book entitled Lessons for Students in Architecture (1991).According to Hertzberger flexibility suggest and open-ended solution,which refers to what is called rhetotic valueof flexibility that defines by Schneider and Till (2005).Flexibility signifies-since there is no angiotensin-converting enzyme solution that is favourite(a) to all others-the absolute denial of a fixed, clearcut standpoint. The flexible plan starts out from the certainly that correct solution does not exist Although a flexible set- up admittedly adapts itself to each change as it presents itself, it can never be the best and most suitable to any one problemit can at any given moment provide any solution but most appropriate one. (1991, p.146)From Hertzbergers perspective, flexibility refers to the caple of proposing different solutions for diverse users with no certain single solution but most appropriate one. He discussed flexibility in a different perspective by introducing the term polyvalence which means a characteristic of a static form, a form that can be put into different users without having undergo changes itself, so that a minimal flexibility can still produce an optimal solution. (1991, p.147)Steven Grok discussed the difference between flexibility between flexibility and adaptability from a different perspective in his book entitled The Idea Of Building Though and Action in the Design and Production of Buildings (1992).The spatial organization and internal environment may be suitable for notwith standing a limited array of uses. Here we should distinguish between adaptability, taken to means capable of different social uses, and flexibility, taken to means potentiality of different physical arrangement. The buildings capacity for accommodating changed uses will depend on the extent to which it is adaptable and/or flexible. (Grok, 1992, p.15-17)Grok tries to explain the the adaptability related to the use of space whilst flexibility refers to different physical arrangement.He emphasize that flexibility is valid not only for interior but also for the out-of-door adjustments. In this respect,it can be inferred that Grok agrees with the definition of Rabeneck, Sheppard and Town.Gerard Maccreanor explained the relation between the concepts of flexibility and adaptability by emphasizing the flexibility includes adaptability as well.(1998)Flexibility is a designed idea that leads to the collapse of the traditional layout. (1998, p.40)Adaptability is a different way of viewing fl exibility.The adaptable building is both transfunctional and multifunctional and must be allow the possibility of changing use living into working,working into leisure or as a container of several uses simultaneously. Adaptability is not primarily concerned with a designed idea of flexibility based on the collapse of the traditional layout. An apparent robust identity and enduring presence within an urban context is required that allows the building to cope with futurity needs and changing conditions. (Maccreanor, 1998, p.40)Flexibility has for a long time been a subject of interest for architects. In the years to follow this resulted in many buildings with open, shot planning around fixed service cores.One conclusion is that flexibility doesnt simply imply the necessity of perennial change and breakdown of accepted formula. On the contrary, the buildings that have proven to be the most adaptable, were those not originally planned for flexibility. (Maccreanor, 1998, p.40)Maccrean or points out flexibility is neither a characteristic of indeterminate space that allows unending change, nor is it a characteristic of detrminate space with too much technical equipments.In other words, if architects leave thir buildings open for infinitely different solutions for the usersthey lead to open-endedness (Scheneider Till, 2005, p.158) and uncertainty (Hertzberger, 1991, p.117). By the same token,if architects put more emphasis on flexibility through building with movable partition, they will create false neutrality as a result of too much technical or strictly defined spaces (Schneider Till, Theory, 2005, p.158). They are the two controversial approaches to flexibility in architectural design that snuff it rather to the rhetoric of flexibility by Schneider Till (2007, p.5)Gerard Maccreanor has a different view about flexibility. He said that flexibility does not imply an endless change. He also asserted that the building which are not originally design for flexib ility, can be the most adaptable one.Adrian Forty (2000) deals with flexibility as an issue that requires long-term thinking in architectural design.The incorporation of flexibility into the design allowed architects the illusion of projecting their control over the building into the future, beyond the period of their actual responsibility for it. (Forty, 2000, p.143)The confusion in meaning of flexibility is based on two contradictory roles it has served to extend functionalism and so make it multivariate and it has been employed to resist functionalism. (200, p.148)